3 ms·

> for the vast majority of applications, I'd gladly give away 50% of the CPU. Don't you think you're over-generalizing a bit much from your own circumstances?

> for the vast majority of applications, I'd gladly give away 50% of the CPU. Don't you think you're over-generalizing a bit much from your own circumstances? If these issues don't matter to you then you basically don't belong in this conversation. They matter a lot to people who write software that runs on large numbers of servers, with both CPU and memory utilization pushed to the limits. That's a lot of us. If you have a million machines, even a 0.1% improvement on either axis is huge. That's racks upon racks worth of equipment that doesn't need to be installed, powered, or maintained. If I could save 10% of 10% ("nothing" according to you) across such a large fleet, I'd be a hero and I'd be rewarded accordingly.

glenneroo 8y ago
Don't forget game development, especially users of the Unity game engine, where their "aggressive" GC has often been the bane of projects such as Kerbal Space Program. I have been struggling lately with my own Unity GC issues, where it's running the GC every frame, subsequently dropping my FPS from the 90 I need for VR down to 50 every few frames. Even the new experimental GC they have implemented seems to have no effect.
- p_l 8y ago
  Would probably help if they had constant-time GC available, where you bind mutator ("application code") and collector (GC) to specific quanta of time to run, thus providing reliable timings. The question is whether it would be fast enough.